In accordance with 23 CFR 924.9, TDOT's Rail Crossing Safety Program used a project selection process that consisted of four (4) data-based steps to initially select crossings at highest risk for severe crashes with a few additional crossings selected for projects per Tennessee's Safety Data-driven Priorities, as described below.

Step 1. Using the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) Accident Prediction Model described in the Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Manual Revised Second Edition August 2007 and the most up-to-date crossing inventory and crash data, a predicted crash rate was determined for each public railway-highway crossing. The USDOT Accident Prediction Model combines three independent calculations to produce a collision prediction value. The basic formula provides an initial hazard ranking based on a crossing's characteristics, similar to other formulae such as the Peabody-Dimmick formula and the New Hampshire Hazard Index. The second formula utilizes the actual collision history at a crossing over a determined number of years to produce a collision prediction value. This procedure assumes that future collisions per year at a crossing will be the same as the average historical rate over the time period used in the calculation. The third equation adds a normalizing constant, which is adjusted periodically by the USDOT to keep the procedure matched with current collision trends. Factors used in the USDOT Accident Prediction Model include:

• A formula constant based on crossing category (passive, flashing lights, or gates);
• Exposure (product of highway and train traffic);
• Number of main tracks;
• Number of through trains per day during daylight;
• Highway paved (yes or no);
• Maximum train speed;
• Highway functional classification;
• Number of highway lanes; and
• Actual crash history within last 5 years.

Step 2. Crossings were eliminated from project consideration based on criteria to address potentially severe crashes. The criteria included:

• Maximum train speed < 20 mph and no crashes within last 5 years;
• Active warning devices and no crashes within last 5 years;
• Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) < 100 and no crashes within last 5 years;
• No main tracks and no crashes within last 5 years;
• Total daily trains < 2 and no crashes within last 5 years; and
• Section 130 Program project within last 5 years and no crashes within last 5 years.

Step 3. Crossings were double-checked for potentially significant data errors, such as errors regarding counts of warning devices or crossing status as "public", by reviewing aerial and ground photography, contacting local governments, and reviewing crash records. After correcting inventory records, crossings were reevaluated based on Steps 1 and 2.

Step 4. Crossings were selected for projects from highest predicted crash rate to lowest predicted crash rate, as resources and funding allowed.

Tennessee's Safety Data-driven Priorities:
For Tennessee's priority to address crossing safety issues immediately and efficiently, public railway-highway crossings were also investigated for project selection when:

• Crossings experienced crashes;
• While conducting Diagnostic Team Reviews of selected crossings, nearby crossings were observed to be in need of safety upgrades; or
• As part of 23 CFR 646.214(2)(b) compliance, crossings within or near the termini of federally-funded projects were found to be in need of safety upgrades.

The first sentence of 23 USC 130 states "Subject to section 120 and subsection (b) of this section, the entire cost of construction of projects for the elimination of hazards of railway-highway crossings, including the separation or protection of grades at crossings, the reconstruction of existing railroad grade crossing structures, the relocation of highways to eliminate grade crossings, and projects at grade crossings to eliminate hazards posed by blocked grade crossings due to idling trains, may be paid from sums apportioned in accordance with section 104 of this title."

23 USC 120(c)(1) states “INCREASED FEDERAL SHARE.—(1) CERTAIN SAFETY PROJECTS.—The Federal share payable on account of any project for traffic control signalization, maintaining minimum levels of retroreflectivity of highway signs or pavement markings, traffic circles (also known as ‘‘roundabouts’’), safety rest areas, pavement marking, shoulder and centerline rumble strips and stripes, commuter carpooling and vanpooling, rail-highway crossing closure, or installation of traffic signs, traffic lights, guardrails, impact attenuators, concrete barrier endtreatments, breakaway utility poles, or priority control systems for emergency vehicles or transit vehicles at signalized intersections may amount to 100 percent of the cost of construction of such projects; except that not more than 10 percent of all sums apportioned for all the Federal-aid programs for any fiscal year in accordance with section 104 of this title shall be used under this subsection.”

Additional steps were taken this past year from previous years, beginning from emails in March 2017, due to an FHWA "funding reinterpretation" for the Railway-Highway Crossings (Section 130) Program. Prior to March 2017, Section 130 projects were authorized for funding utilizing 23 USC 120(c)(1) allowing 100% federal share for some projects, depending on scope. On September 19, 2018, FHWA shared with TDOT a FHWA memorandum dated August 16, 2018, regarding “ACTION: Mitigation for Incorrect Federal Share of Rail-Highway Crossing Program (RHCP) Set-aside Funds (23 U.S.C. 130)”. In the memo, FHWA explains to its Division Administrators and Directors of Field Services that FHWA will now only authorize up to a 90% federal share for Section 130 Program's projects and instructs four actions to take place by September 30, 2019 (summarized below):

1. Review all open and closed projects funded above 90% federal share on or after April 14, 2016.
2. Collaborate with State DOTs on implementation of remedial actions with mitigating options including:
   • Soft match (per 2 CFR 200.306(b) and 2 CFR 200.403(g)); or
   • Reclassifying all Section 130 funds on a project to other available and eligible federal funds that allow for the higher federal share.
3. If applicable, adjust remaining obligations of Section 130 funds downward to 90% of total project cost.
4. As a last resort, recover the excess payments.

The memo is difficult to understand. Section 130 Program projects (described in the Tennessee State strategic highway safety plan) are specifically defined as a Highway Safety Improvement Project under the Highway Safety Improvement Program definitions in 23 USC 148(a)(3)(B)(vi). Also, according to a rule published March 15, 2016, in the Federal Register entitled "Highway Safety Improvement Program" effective April 14, 2016:

• 23 CFR 924.3 defines "Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) means a State safety program with the purpose to reduce fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads through the implementation of the provisions of 23 U.S.C. 130, 148, and 150, including the development of a data-driven Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), Railway-Highway Crossings Program, and program of highway safety improvement projects."
• 23 CFR 924.11(g) states "Except as provided in 23 U.S.C. 120 and 130, the Federal share of the cost of a highway safety improvement project carried out with funds apportioned to a State under 23 U.S.C. 104(b)(3) shall be 90 percent."